This chapter on Human–Robot Interaction (HRI) focuses on the ways humans respond to and interact with social robots. It begins by delineating recent research into HRI and the factors influencing user interaction with social robots. The main interest of the chapter is on anthropomorphism, that is, the observed human tendency to assign human traits and characteristics to technology, and the implications this has for robot design. After critically analyzing anthropomorphic robot design and its implications for HRI, the chapter discusses the role of ethics in shaping the development of technology in general and social robots in particular. From the European Ethics Guidelines for Trustworthy AI – human agency, transparency, communication, and individual and societal well-being are presented here as concepts and principles of importance for the design of present and future social robots.

Chapter 6 addresses the problem of error estimation and resampling in both a theoretical and practical manner. The holdout method is reviewed and cast into the bias/variance framework. Simple resampling approaches such as cross-validation are also reviewed and important variations such as stratified cross-validation and leave-one-out are introduced. Multiple resampling approaches such as bootstrapping, randomization, and multiple trials of simple resampling approaches are then introduced and discussed.

Based primarily on the law of the Russian Federation, this chapter reviews the current state of intersectoral relations between different legal schemes that apply to the regulation of robots. To do so, the chapter discusses the complementarity and consistent attempt of legal scholars to integrate legal processes occurring within civil, administrative, and criminal law into a single comprehensive framework for robot regulation. As discussed in this chapter, the connection between the civil law principles of indemnification, liability insurance, and the consideration of criminal law provisions is essential for the establishment of an effective regulatory system for robotic devices, as well as for the construction of norms for the regulation of robots. The chapter argues that there are currently no well-accepted mechanisms in civil law to hold the developers for robots’ software accountable for resulting harm, which is a serious omission given the growing autonomy of robotic devices. Further, the chapter argues that it is essential to recognize controlled and semicontrolled robots as sources of increased danger to individuals and that the responsibility for the damage caused by controlled and semicontrolled robots should be assigned to the robot owners. The chapter concludes that the main criteria distinguishing civil law torts from criminal law offenses when considering harms to individuals resulting from interaction with robots are the degree of public danger and the extent of damage caused by the robotic technology.

Technology has been an integral part of biological life since the inception of terrestrial life. Evolution is the process by which biological life seeks to transcend itself in pursuit of more robust life. This chapter examines transhumanism as the use of technological means to enhance human biological function. Transhumanists see human nature as a work in progress and suggest that by responsible use of science, technology and other rational means, we shall become beings with vastly greater capacities and unlimited potential. Transhumanism has religious implications.

Chapter 2 reviews the principles of statistics that are necessary for the discussion of machine learning evaluation methods, especially the statical analysis discussion of Chapter 7. In particular, it reviews the notions of random variables, distributions, confidence intervals, and hypothesis testing.

This chapter briefly reviews various ways in which ethics have been implemented in AI-enabled devices such as humanoid and expressive robots, and how care for other forms of embedded AI is an important part of creating trustable and ethical AI systems. We look at nudging in particular, how robots experienced in social contexts could implement nudging, and the implications of nudging for four fundamental ethical values that underpin trust. We discuss this topic using examples and by presenting important questions that creators of AI-based nudging systems should ask themselves, before and after creating such systems.

This chapter explores issues for Islam in relation to religious themes arising from developments in artificial intelligence (AI), conceived both as a philosophical and scientific quest to understand human intelligence and as a technological enterprise to instrumentalise it for commercial or political purposes. The monotheistic teachings of Islam are outlined to identify themes in AI that relate to central questions in the Islamic context and to addresses nuances of Islamic belief that differentiate it from the other Abrahamic traditions in consideration of AI. This chapter draws together the existing sparse literature on the subject, including notable applications of AI in Islamic contexts, and draws attention to the role of the Muslim world as a channel and expositor of knowledge between the ancient and modern world in the pre-history of AI. The chapter provides foundations for future scholarship on Islam and AI and a resource for wider scholarship on the religious, societal and cultural significance of AI.

With the emergence of complex systems composed of AI-powered autonomous robots, the argument has emerged that robots that can behave autonomously should be given legal personality and be the subject of legal acts and responsibilities. However, these arguments do not depart from the “humanism” that is the root cause of the problems that current legal theory faces in a complex scientific and technological society. This article attempts to provide a possible solution to the legal problems that arise in today’s complex scientific and technological society by introducing the concept of “legal being” and the novel legal system that enables strategic attribution of legal liability in complex human–robot interactions.

This chapter focuses on the potential impact of anthropomorphic robots on the safety of humans. Regarding the legal protection of human lives, the rise of anthropomorphic robots could pose at least two threats, the “epistemological threat” and the “patient threat.” The epistemological threat concerns humans’ epistemological limitations. Humans could have difficulty in distinguishing humans from robots owing to the way in which humans gather information about the external world. The patient threat concerns the possibility of prioritizing robots in situations in which human life is in danger owing to the recognition of robots as moral patients. This chapter also discusses the place of robots in the hierarchy of legally protected values and ways to mitigate the threat to human superiority by anthropomorphic robots.

The integration of assisted living technologies in the home is rapidly accelerating. As socially assistive robots (SARs) often operate in the private sphere of life, sometimes in symbiotic relations with the people they assist, they may give rise to privacy concerns. This chapter investigates the potential privacy and data protection issues arising from the increasing deployment of assisted living technologies (AAL) in general and SARs in particular. It addresses privacy concerns related to human–robot interactions, including conversational interfaces, audio- and video-based assistive technologies, and analyzes them within the European context. Since the wide range of privacy concerns resulting from using SARs raises particular challenges for the design process, this article zooms in on the Privacy by Design concept introduced in the European General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR). Since communication and interaction with robots in therapeutic and care contexts impact data protection, these privacy concerns pose challenges that must be considered in a life cycle starting during the robot design and finalizing the implementation in care settings, including home care.

Social robots present a novel category of socially interactive technology. There is increasing interest in how people behave toward social robots, how robots can change human behaviors, and what are the factors that influence this interaction. This is a complex relationship between the robot’s physical embodiment, social behaviors, and capabilities, and also the human factor. There are differences in how people behave toward robots and this chapter takes a look at the role of an individual’s cultural background and the factors interwoven with what we generally define as culture, and how those are a factor in holistically understanding how robots are perceived.

Robots are an increasingly common feature in public spaces. From regulations permitting broader drone use in public airspace, and autonomous vehicle testing on public roads, to laws permitting or restricting the presence of delivery robots on sidewalks – law often precipitates the introduction of new robotic systems into shared spaces. Laws that permit, regulate, or prohibit robotic systems in public spaces will in many ways determine how this new technology affects public space and the people who inhabit that space. This begs the questions: How should regulators approach the task of regulating robots in public spaces? And should any special considerations apply to the regulation of robots because of the public nature of the spaces they occupy? With a focus on the Canadian legal system, and drawing upon insights from the interdisciplinary field of law and geography, this chapter argues that the laws that regulate robots deployed in public space will affect the public nature of that space, potentially to the benefit of some human inhabitants of the space over others. For this reason, special considerations should apply to the regulation of robots that will operate in public space. In particular, the entry of a robotic system into a public space should never be prioritized over communal access to and use of that space by people. And, where a robotic system serves to make a space more accessible, lawmakers should avoid permitting differential access to that space through the regulation of that robotic system.